« Reading The National Review Makes Me Happy | Main | Mukasey In The Hall Of Mirrors »
September 16, 2007
They're Thinking Big At The Top
By Neil the Ethical Werewolf
Brother Nicholas has been arguing that Democrats should feel confident about their ability to win a lot of Senate seats in 2008, and he's entirely right. At this early point, we're favored to take at least three seats from the Republicans (CO, NH, VA) and maybe a fourth (NE). The silver lining behind Democratic capitulation on Iraq, to talk like a mathematician, is that it reduces the 2008 election to a problem previously solved. 2006 showed us that we can destroy the GOP in an election where public anger about the continuing Iraq War is the big issue, and in 2008 we'll be replaying that scenario with 7 more GOP Senators up for re-election than last time.
Zooming out a little bit, the leadership situation looks promising. After leading the effort that won us six seats in 2006, Chuck Schumer is coming back with his top-notch recruitment, fundraising, and cash allocation skills. The first two of those have already been on display -- the DSCC is winning the fundraising battle by a lot, and we've got our dream candidates in Virginia and New Hampshire. (I hear that before Schumer, powerful but safe incumbents would often wrangle funds out of DSCC chairmen, and it's good to see the end of that.) On the other hand, I don't know if I'm allowed to hope that Karl Rove will be advising the GOP on last-minute spending again. It's the one area in which he's an absolute idiot. He had the GOP throw money into their big losses in New Jersey, Maryland, and Michigan, even as they lost Montana and Virginia by the slimmest margins.
While we obviously don't have the calendar advantages in the House that we have in the Senate, there's reason for optimism there too. The Iraq-related devastation of the Republican brand will help us at the House level, and it's great to see that DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen has vowed to take advantage of that by expanding the field and helping in more races. In keeping with that strategy, he's replaced the weakest link in our 2006 effort -- executive director John Lapp. Lapp's narrow focus on battleground districts was a major factor in our losing 13 out of 19 races that were decided by 5000 votes or less. Many of our candidates in the tightest races -- Larry Kissell, Gary Trauner, and Victoria Wulsin, for example -- got no support from Lapp, who was in charge of DCCC independent expenditures. I don't know Lapp's replacement, Brian Wolff, but Van Hollen's openness to casting a wider net makes me hopeful that Wolff will play it smarter.
In any election, there are good reasons to cast a fairly wide net. (Obviously, I don't mean that you should spend millions on a Senate race where you're losing by double digits in the final weeks.) Resources of all kinds are faced by the problem of diminishing marginal returns, and the two-millionth dollar spent on a race will probably move fewer votes than the hundred-thousandth. Dumping late money into a district already saturated with TV ads can't be as effective as early ad buys to define the candidates and shape the media coverage.
September 16, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Brother Nicholas'argument would be right on the money were it not for the fact that hundreds of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will die in the meantime.
Posted by: Katherine | Sep 16, 2007 4:30:01 PM
Exactly. but then the crassness of the post is supposed be ignored because, you know, the Democrats will win.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 16, 2007 4:43:55 PM
I'd much rather we get out of Iraq. Given Nick's post at the beginning of the weekend, I'm sure he agrees. But it doesn't look very likely that we will, and the important question is becoming -- what are we going to do in the wake of the reality that we'll be in Iraq until 2009?
All we can do now is work for the nomination and election of a Democratic president who will take us out of Iraq, and for the election of enough reasonable Senators to avert wars in the future.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 16, 2007 5:03:06 PM
This is the part that shows you and I are in different realities:
"All we can do now is work for the nomination and election of a Democratic president who will take us out of Iraq, and for the election of enough reasonable Senators to avert wars in the future."
I have lost faith in my party. Apparently, you have not. They have the power to act now. That they choose not to, and instead choose as your post rather crassly states, to play politics with this, says it all. Reading your post , in fact, that's understood.
"That" being they can't be trusted to do the right thing. And certainly with more power there is no reason to conclude they will do the right thing. Look at the states in which we are expected to win for God sakes. They are all moderate to conservative.
Certainly, they no longer have to worry much about any real threat from once vibrant A list bloggers either. You are too busy trying to keep things civil or too afraid to not be a part of the party should you back the wrong horses.
I would reward behavior. The only reason why I support Edwards, and this is about all, is because he is putting his present behavior where his words are. I could imagine supporting Dodd too. Yet, what most enamours the party? Those who are the least likely to do anything at all. Those who parse every word and keep their fingers pepetually in the DC CW. Not the general public mind you. Just the DC CW.
I will predict what I've been predicting all week. By mid next decade, the Democrats will be demoralized and where the GOP finds itself now.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 16, 2007 5:56:41 PM
I don't know if they made that explicit choice, akaison. It's also possible that they're just irrationally terrified of the GOP's supposed power on national security issues, and they backed themselves into what's actually the election-winning strategy. That fits better with the fearful party I knew from 2003-2004, and the FISA vote suggests that fear is still a big thing with them. But then again, Reid's a lot less fearful than Daschle was. So who knows.
We've got a very long way to go, in trying to set up an arrangement of political forces that will govern our country better. But the quickest ways I see for our getting there involve Democrats winning this election, even if today's Senate Democrats are very far from the party I want to see.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 16, 2007 6:40:15 PM
You seem to confuse electoral victory with winning on the substance. That seems to be the fatal flaw on the A list blogs whether its mydd, open left, daily kos or here. You learned the wrong this from Bush. it's true you must win electorally to govern. but it's not true that because you win electorally as a Democrat that you will govern as a progressive.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 16, 2007 6:52:08 PM
this=thing
Posted by: akaison | Sep 16, 2007 6:52:44 PM
it's not true that because you win electorally as a Democrat that you will govern as a progressive.
I totally agree with that -- it's why I'm doing whatever I can to make Edwards get the nomination and not Hillary. The trouble is that without Democratic electoral victory, we have zero hope of progressive governance. If you want real progressive change, what have to hope for is Democratic electoral victory, plus some interesting wins in leadership fights, plus the right president.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 16, 2007 7:06:17 PM
You seem to confuse electoral victory with winning on the substance.
Right now, in DC, there are thousands of young Republican party activists at all levels of government in every single political appointee position of every single agency. They're making policy, drafting mission statements, and setting priorities. Once a Democrat wins the presidency, all of those Republicans go home, to be replaced by more wonkish, more qualified Democrats, and they'll be the ones running the show. Whether Hillary Clinton wins or whether Dennis Kucinich wins, a large chunk of those may even be the same group of people.
Change is very slow and it is very difficult. The first step is "normalizing" the concept of Democratic party dominance in everyone's mind and shift the dialog leftwards.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 16, 2007 7:13:31 PM
ThIs was by far and away:
--THE MOST DISGUSTING POST--
I ever read on Ezra's Website.
_____________________________________________
To be clear:
A man gushes publicly that the Democrats can pick up additional seats if Democrats can "keep their powder dry" and just prolong the war.
Yeah sure, spill a little more blood of American Soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians, but it's worth it because Democrats will gain seats. Just think of all those extra cocktail party invites. Disgusting.
What's that you say?
You didn't come right out and say the mainstream Democrats were prolonging the war just to gain power...it was only implied.
What's that?
You wouldn't be so stupid as to publicly state what a rats nest of immorality the DINO party has become.
I agree.
It's implicit, not explicit, which makes the establishment DINO party not just whores, but spineless whores, at least the Republican party doesn't pretend to believe in justice.
______________________________________________
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 16, 2007 7:15:04 PM
Tyro
Please don't pressume to lecture me about how Washington works. If you tthink what S Brennan is somehow better than what the GOP does simply because we elect Democrats, then there is really little that's left to be said. The American certainly didn't vote for the Democrats year under the theory that we would accept power based on sacrificing American soldiers. Let's calla duck a duck. No more cute terms for what you are saying, and no more hiding behind the GOP. This blood is on the Democrats hands if what is being described here is the motivating force for action.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 16, 2007 8:16:58 PM
If I thought that Neil was suggesting that Democrats benefit from continued death and destruction in Iraq, so let's have more of it, I'd be appalled too. Let's be clear - the reason we're not getting out of Iraq is the policies of the President, aided by a substantial Republican minority that in unison can derail the prospects for ending the war. If there's a reason to vote for Democrats and to believe that things will get better when we do that, it's because a Democratic President with greater majorities in both houses won't be President Bush and won't have the obstruction of the GOP in Congress to such a degree. I don't think that will ever be enough to satisfy akaison, whose disillusionment has been palpable for some time, and who is probably quite accurate that things will not change enough in the ways he would like. But really, Nick's right - the alternative to electing Democrats is watching Republicans continue to be in control. And I'm still naive enough to believe that there's enough substantial differences between what happens when Democrats and what happens when someone like Bush is in charge to prefer the former. No one, certainly no one with a shred of humanity, would suggest that we should feel good about reaping electoral victories from the horrors of Iraq. But let's be clear about who's responsible for those horrors, because it's why we want them out of office.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 16, 2007 8:38:23 PM
Weboy,
You don't need a super-majority to defund a war, just a majority, heck committees can tie up a spending bill.
The reason the war has not been defunded is that Democrats see it in THEIR INTEREST to keep the war going, the only question is why?
This post makes the Democrats motivation pretty clear.
Democrats are just pretending to be helpless...that's not leadership, that's cowardice dereliction of duty.
If the Democrats kids were over there, they would not be pulling this crap.
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 16, 2007 9:04:28 PM
To change the subject a bit, I note that Neil invoked the old internet meme that there is a law of diminishing returns in campaign financing. This is true, but not particularly useful. There is also a law of increasing returns. The trick is to know where the inflection point may be, as well as to know if the race is tight enough to be worth the marginal bucks. Remember, the only voter who counts in this calculus is the 50%+1 voter.
But under these cockamamie campaign finance rules we must live with, money is good, and more money for our side is better, and less money for the other guys is best of all. I only hope that Democratic politicians will make campaign financiers realize that funding has consequences. Edwards seems to be doing a nice job of this, in the proper high-minded way.
Posted by: Joe S. | Sep 16, 2007 9:08:10 PM
The silver lining behind Democratic capitulation on Iraq, to talk like a mathematician, is that it reduces the 2008 election to a problem previously solved.
As a recovering mathematician, I'm familiar with the language, but I'm not sure that statement's as true as Dems (or we) would hope.
You see, in 2006, everyone knew that the GOP was responsible for the war (and a whole bunch of other bad shit), and there was reason to get behind the Dems, who (a) were the only real alternative, and (b) hadn't had a chance to do anything about the war or the other bad shit.
In 2008, (a) is still true, but (b) isn't anymore. A lot is going to depend on how forgiving the electorate is of the Dems' failures to end the war, rein in Administration wiretapping and surveillance, restore habeas corpus, and so forth.
If I were a Dem running in 2008, I'd much rather run on "vote Dem - we got America out of Iraq" than "vote Dem, and give us a second chance to get America out of Iraq."
And given that we've failed to get America out of Iraq, I'd want to show that we did every last thing we could try to rein in this lawless Administration - that we made the GOP Senators filibuster, that we used inherent contempt to back up our subpoena power, that when Bush vetoed our bill that funded withdrawal from Iraq, we sent him the same bill again, you name it.
We won in 2006 mostly because we started showing some fight, some moxie. Since May, the Dems have had precious little fight in them anymore. I think the electorate's good for one more bite at the apple, but if we don't come through big-time in 2009, the party may be over all too quickly.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | Sep 16, 2007 9:22:50 PM
The Dems do not yet have the votes to stop the war. They can't end the war. So why complain when they play it slow and cautious? Lives would be at stake if we could force Bush's hand, but our majorities are too thin. People seem to forget that the only reason Dems have a Senate majority is Because Lieberman (I) chooses to caucus with the Democrats. That is our margin.
2008 comes down to this:
Those who want out will tend to vote Dem.
People who think we can force the President out of a war, solely using the power of the purse, with a majority this slim, don't know politics.
I know a lot of you find this political chess offensive. Grow up. If you want to get out of Iraq stop bitching and help the Democrats win so they are on the hook. Living in some fantasyland where Democrats are keeping us in Iraq is babyish. There are 49 Democratic Senators (50 if you count Bernie Sanders). Dick Cheney is the tiebreaker. We do not (yet) have the power to yank Republicans by the short hairs.
Maybe with some Republican defections, but they haven't happened yet.
The fastest road to getting out of Iraq is by voting for anti-war Dems. In the meantime quit the irrational boo-hooing.
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 16, 2007 11:19:18 PM
TomTom,
Your the one who lacks political acumen.
Your the one refuting with emotional argument.
Please explain why the Dems do not have control of spending bills. Your argument doesn't hold water...some folks took civics classes. The current president does not have unilateral powers, please read up on US Government.
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 16, 2007 11:30:12 PM
tomtom,
Who do you think shows up to this site? I get the feeling some of you think you are on CNN or MSNBC with your talking points all neatly prepared and with expectations that you can run out the clock. Do you honestly think we don't know what is meant by addressing the funding now, the nuiances of it or what it meant versus what is spun? Are you truly that much of a talking head wannabe?
Posted by: akaison | Sep 16, 2007 11:30:35 PM
S Brennan,
The Democrats can pass bill after bill after bill. What they don't have is a veto-proof majority. Bush will veto the bills.
The only option the Democrats have at present is to refuse to put up any spending bills at all, or attach riders to "must pass" bills. This will eventually bring us to a showdown, similar to what happened between Newt and Clinton.
Would we win this showdown? Or would Lieberman stop caucusing with the Dems, a reverse Jeffords move? Or would some lame-ass Dem cave under the pressure?
As I said, we just don't have the votes, yet.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 16, 2007 11:40:56 PM
Don't do not need a veto proof majority.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 16, 2007 11:45:15 PM
Nice assertion, akaison. What is the strategy?
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 16, 2007 11:50:06 PM
TomTom,
Not the same, the Repus shut down the Government, Clinton did not Veto bills repeatedly...sorry your history is wrong.
If Bush wants to Veto bills it will he who shuts down the Government...as you point out the last time the Repus did that they lost the public, but the house or the Senate remained in their hands. So Republicans shutting down the Government cost them little.
Next.
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 17, 2007 12:02:02 AM
Joe - I accept that there may be inflection points at relatively low dollar numbers, but I think that once we're talking about independent expenditures in the millions, we reach steady diminishing returns in terms of votes won per dollar spent.
tomtom and akaison - We don't need a veto-proof majority, in my view. What we need is 51 Senators willing to vote no on funding. Without GOP defections, we have 49 plus Bernie. I do think that a better-organized strategy, from the ground up, might be able to put pressure on Gordon Smith, John Sununu, Susan Collins, and other vulnerable Republicans such that one of them might snap and vote no on funding. But doing that would require Democrats to have been bold about their media strategies all throughout this year, and it's a little late in the game to pull that off.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 17, 2007 12:10:45 AM
It's unrealistic to expect that Congress can, with bare majorities express it will in cutting spending for the war. In the end, it would be largely a showy exercise in frustration, which would end in even greater capitulation (giving Bush what he wants after a spate of bad press in which we get to hear about how "Democrats hate our fighting men and women") or having Bush do an end run around the restrictions, which it seems clear he would probably do. Passing legislation that gets vetoed, and vetoed and vetoed... will not reverse the impression that Congress is not getting things done. The war remains a Bush operation, run by the Executive. Continuing to rage at Democrats in Congress for what they cannot stop just continues to seem terribly misplaced - and trying to spread blame around only dilutes anger that really should be focused on the President, who remains in the most natural position to end this war and bring troops home. Having more "show" votes to show that we're really really not happy with soldiers being in Iraq... remains a show, not action. To get action, at this point, we need to elect more Democrats. That's what it comes down to, and the alternative is more Republicans. How that would be an improvement eludes me.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 17, 2007 12:12:19 AM
let me tell you what's realistic. the american public already perceives of the democrats as weak. none of this whining about needing more will convince them that we are not. it reinforces it. i constantly amazed at how you think acting weak can be a sign of showing strength.
the strategy tomtom is to have balls enough to be willing to risk something. instead, i see online peo actually arguing shit like "we can't do anything or else they will blame us." let me say right here and now as i said earlier- if this is the mentality that the party has it will be out of power once the GOP regroups in 5 to 10 years. that much is as real as you can get. these victories will be short term because to solidify them we must act differently than the GOP. simply saying "not the gop" may work one or two cycles, but after that- its on us, if it isn't already started to shift.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 12:18:27 AM
i want to make one other point and then i'll not comment ont his again. the GOP managed to do agree deal with very little in the way of actual power because they, unlike us, understood how to weld it when the were out of power. even with us being in power we don't know how to weld it. that says a lot. feel free to parse our weakness all you want. it still comes across as weakness. just as much as kerry coming out to bed bush to stop swiftboating him made him look weak. these are gut level things. not things you can spin and reason your way out of being perceived as.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 12:20:51 AM
S Brennan
Clinton did veto. Check CRS 98-844
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-844.pdf
It was a showdown, Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution and a debt extension bill, and made it clear he would veto further bills that didn't meet his conditions.
Gingrich, lacking a veto-proof majority, allowed a temporary continuing resolution to lapse, figuring Clinton would fold. Clinton didn't fold, the government shut down, and the public sided with Clinton. Gingrich folded and lost the Leadership. Clinton proved to everyone he was one tough contender.
The Congress was made weaker, the President stronger.
Doing something similar now is a high stakes crap shoot, and the winner is the guy who can best predict public reaction.
Again, we hold the Senate by the grace of Joe Lieberman.
Come on guys, are your arguments this lame? The 1995 shutdown is the obvious historical analogy. To make your case present a convincing case that it would play out differently this time.
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 17, 2007 12:36:45 AM
I won't disagree with the assertion that since last year's election, Democrats have made a hash out of opposing the war; I do think that it's hard to see how it could have gone differently, even with other approaches... but I think in the worst of all worlds, Democrats overpromised what they could reasonably do to work with Bush on negotiating an end to the war, and then failed to deliver, which, I'd agree, made them both look weak and left them with a very disappointed base. However, I'd sharply disagree with the notion that the GOP did a better job running Congress from 2000 to 2006, or that during that period, Democrats failed to show considerable skill in working from a minority position - the win in 2006 had everything to do with laying oppositional groundwork in Congress after the 2004 election (and considerable failures on the part of Congressional Republicans to do enough about wasteful spending and corruption). And I'd disagree with the notion that the GOP has shown much skill in the minority in either house; outside of party discipline, they've advanced essentially no policy alternative of any consequence... which is why senior members are fleeing in droves and the prospects next year for them look so grim. I do also think that after 2008, should they win in the way we think they might, Democrats will have a short window to make progress or squander the good will left in the base that the problem was control of the Presidency and greater majorities in both houses. But if you've already given up on giving any hope for improvement, then it seems to me this thing is lost before we've even tried. And I think it would be better to right size some expectations rather than wait for disappointment - that's part of dealing with the hand you're dealt, not wishing there was some other, mysterious deck of cards that would always make the game go your way. And akaison, to read your expectations, I don't see how almost anything Democrats might do would ever satisfy. That's not a conclusion I'm settling on... not yet, anyway.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 17, 2007 12:43:24 AM
"We don't need a veto-proof majority, in my view. What we need is 51 Senators willing to vote no on funding. Without GOP defections, we have 49 plus Bernie. "
Exactly. Furthermore, those 51 have to be absolutely willing to take heat, because a showdown with a hothead like Bush absolutely will get ugly.
I'm game for it, when we have the votes. Pointing out that we don't have the votes is not weak. It si arithmetic.
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 17, 2007 12:45:16 AM
Excellent posts, weboy
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 17, 2007 12:47:22 AM
Tomtom,
Read your own words:
"Gingrich, lacking a veto-proof majority, allowed a temporary continuing resolution to lapse, figuring Clinton would fold".- tomtom
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 17, 2007 12:47:23 AM
akaison,
Is right.
What the Democrats are saying is:
Hey, we're really weak, we're really helpless, we're really gutless...so put us in charge and things will change.
Sorry folks, if the Democrats want to help trash this country's form of government and turn it into a plutocracy/kleptocracy they can do it with my dollar or my vote. Most Democrats come across to me as gutless creeps, especially that Rahm Emanuel guy who claimed it was his strategic brilliance that returned the Dems to congressional control...what a creep.
Rahm...the Democrats won because the people were sick of Republican incompetence, the Democrats spent six rears enabling the Republicans, but the people had nowhere to turn to...so they voted Democratic...it had nothing to do with your "brilliance"...get a grip Rahm
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 17, 2007 12:49:16 AM
akaison
You like to talk about balls and strength and will. You avoid talking about the reality on the ground or proposing any reality-based strategy.
Kinda Bush-like
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 17, 2007 12:52:16 AM
S Brennan
I wrote my words. What is your point? I am really beginning to doubt you can argue rationally.
What happened to your assertion that Clinton did not veto repeatedly? Yet he did, twice, and made it clear there were more where those came from.
So Gingrich let a continuing resolution lapse, shutting down the government. He figured that Clinton would relent agree not to veto his bill. Clinton didn't relent.
I think you just are not capable of processing this.
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 17, 2007 12:57:03 AM
Tomtom,
Read your own words:
"Gingrich, lacking a veto-proof majority, allowed a temporary continuing resolution to lapse, figuring Clinton would fold".- tomtom
Then stare at the page and think real hard...got it.
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 17, 2007 1:08:10 AM
No he doesn't get it. He thinks he can spin his weakness into strength. I imagine for 2008 you can. But its not just about 2008. In the long run, all your whining sounds like weakness. It's what my party always sounds.
It's like I said a few months ago- many just don't get it. Then there were people posting here about how we could explain the vote. That in the fall it would be different. Guess what. Exactly the same.
Why? because weak character doesn't change from the spring to the fall. It was never about timing. It was about who we are. And we as a party are weak in character.
We lost when we capitulated. It wasn't the issue. It wasn't the reasons why. It was that it reinforced a mindset of being weak. "We can't do it unless all the stars align, the DC CW is with us, the American people are perfectly with us already and the GOP is in bad shape." Then maybe- but wait. Even then, we can't do it because of x,y z. We need a super majority.
It just comes across as whining. Imagine if you had a friend who sounded like the Democrats sound. All TomTom does here is try to convince me that weak is in actually strong. All you are doing TomTom is confirming your weakness because you explaining how you just need a little bit more and a little bit more. but others do for far less than we. Thats saying a lot just as S Brennan and your own post proves.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 1:19:43 AM
In 1995, Congress lacked a veto proof majority. So they tried to get a bill past the President by making it something he could not afford to veto. The President didn't cave, and it backfired on Congress.
In 2007, Congress lack a veto proof majority. Some suggest they try to get a bill past the President by making it something he could not afford to veto. The President is not the type to cave, and the Congressional majorities are much more tenous than they were in 1995.
Counting votes is strong. Ignoring reality is weak. It is a good strategy if we pick up even a few Republicans. Failing that the next best thing is to position ourselves for the next election.
With you guys it seems to all be about attitude and weakness, facts be damned. Very very Bush-like.
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 17, 2007 1:36:27 AM
Back on subject tomtom,
_____________________________________________
To be clear:
A man gushes publicly that the Democrats can pick up additional seats if Democrats can "keep their powder dry" and just prolong the war.
Yeah sure, spill a little more blood of American Soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians, but it's worth it because Democrats will gain seats. Just think of all those extra cocktail party invites. Disgusting.
What's that you say?
You didn't come right out and say the mainstream Democrats were prolonging the war just to gain power...it was only implied.
What's that?
You wouldn't be so stupid as to publicly state what a rats nest of immorality the DINO party has become.
I agree.
It's implicit, not explicit, which makes the establishment DINO party not just whores, but spineless whores, at least the Republican party doesn't pretend to believe in justice.
______________________________________________
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 16, 2007 7:15:04 PM
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 17, 2007 1:54:00 AM
tomtom
And now, the Orwellian use of language. Label attacks of weakness as Bush like. Next you will throwing out 'right wing frame." You people really understand how to manipulate liberal psychology. Too bad you don't know how to do equally well in the long term with understand basic psychology. It's shelf life will last to approximately Jan 1, 2009, if that. You may indeed win- I never assume that peo can not be hoodwink by con artists- but that doesn't mean your weakness will not eventually be seen for what it is. It's the mindset, stupid! It's why you will eventually lose in the long run, just like the person you just accused us of being like. You will lose for a different fatal flaw, but it is clearly a fatal flaw. You continue to explain how you understand the 'process' and how thats why what you say makes sense. It's not going to change that reality.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 8:48:49 AM
Count the votes, my friends.
50 + Lieberman (I) is not enough of a majority to do what you want.
Especially with Cheney as the tie-breaker.
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 17, 2007 11:06:53 AM
tomtom you will never get 'it' you keep talking about votes when we are talking about politics and how you shape public perception. if you really want change you do the second not the first.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 11:22:16 AM
TomTom is wrong about the votes, too.
It's the Republicans who need 50 votes (+ Dick Cheney). You need a majority to fund a war, not to defund it.
37 Democrats in the Senate voted to rubber stamp George Bush's war last May. Without them, he wouldn't have gotten his extra $100 billion.
Progressives need to stop giving cover to weasels in the Democratic party. They have the power to take control of this war, but they won't, so long as their supporters keep making excuses for them.
As for Neil's assumption that capitulating is great strategy, this is the sort of thinking that destroyed the Republican party. Democrats will be rewarded for ending the war, or at least trying to end it. Americans want capable, effective leadership, not a pack of ineffectual whiners.
Posted by: Jinchi | Sep 17, 2007 1:02:36 PM
no they can possibly win next year do to the disentigration of the GOP. the real problem is what happens after when they think this strategy should become the norm. the enough is never enough strategy is short term only, not long.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 17, 2007 3:52:01 PM
Tomtom this one's for you
Mark Kleiman lays it out for them:
Anything that can be ridden on the Defense Appropriations bill (or on a continuing resolution) doesn’t need 60 votes in the Senate. It needs 51 votes in the Senate, or 218 in the House, that will stand firm.
Take, for example, the Webb Amendment, forbidding troops from being required to serve tours in Iraq longer than the spells between tours. If passed, it would force a troop drawdown by spring.
The Democrats should offer the Webb Amendment when the Defense Appropriation comes up. If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. Don’t pull the amendment. Just let them keep filibustering. As long as the amendment is on the floor, there can be no vote on the bill itself. Keep calling cloture votes, one per day. After a few days, start asking how long the Republicans intend to withhold money to fund troops in the field in order to pursue their petty partisan agenda.
If the Republicans in the Senate hold firm, it’s their stubbornness that’s holding up the bill. If they fold, and the bill gets to the President’s desk and he vetoes it, then pass the same damned bill again. And start asking how long the President intends to block funding for troops in the field in order to pursue his petty partisan agenda. Read on…
See? Congressional Democrats, take note. Rather than retreat back into the battered spouse routine you’ve got perfected, do your part to act like the majority party. I promise you’ll see your collective approval ratings shoot up.
Jane asks why Republicans want to punish the troops for Bush’s failures.
Filed Under: Government Policy, Democratic Party, Iraq
Share This | Email This | Spotlight | 128 Comments | Trackback | Permalink
September 17th, 2007
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 18, 2007 12:41:02 AM
S Brennan
Your last post is really good. I have always liked Jim Webb's approach.
I am totally in favor of this idea if you can find 51 votes. (read the first paragraph of your post)
It doesn't work with 50. Kleiman's plan has the Senate passing the bill.
I just don't see 51 votes. Lieberman is a salivating hawk, so you need one resolved GOP crossover. Who?
At 50 votes it doesn't work. No Republican filibuster, just a straight up 50 / 50 vote with the tie broken by Cheney.
So where's the beef? Your post made my point as well as I can.
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 18, 2007 1:19:38 AM
tomtom,
Your wrong as always, Lieberman flips he'll be screwing himself, read below.
Of course as a political hack, you don't care about the Republic, just anther simpering sychophant that is always recomending we "keep our powder dry".
February 22, 2007
Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate
With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.
If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.
What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 18, 2007 4:07:39 PM
S Brennan
I was already aware of these rules. It makes no difference to our argument.
Kleiman's plan that you quote (which I think is a great plan)
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2007/09/iraq_strategy_for_the_democrats.php
is based on being able to get 51 votes to pass a bill.
What I said was "At 50 votes it doesn't work. No Republican filibuster, just a straight up 50 / 50 vote with the tie broken by Cheney."
This is 100% consistent with what Kleiman wrote.
You are either a very careless reader, or too dumb to understand what the text you yourself are quoting!!
We need 51 votes. We don't have them yet. Read Kleiman again. In his very first paragraph
"Anything that can be ridden on the Defense Appropriations bill (or on a continuing resolution) doesn't need 60 votes in the Senate. It needs 51 votes in the Senate, or 218 in the House, that will stand firm.
"IT NEEDS 51 VOTES IN THE SENATE ... THAT WILL STAND FIRM"
I doubt I'll hear back from you. I doubt you can admit it when you are wrong.
Posted by: tomtom | Sep 19, 2007 12:45:02 AM
